2017 (2) TMI 292 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 114A of Customs Act, 1962 - failure to specify the name of the firm or individual on whom the penalty u/s 114A of CA, 1962 was fastened - Held that - penalty u/s 114A is liable to be imposed on the person liable to pay duty as determined in proceedings under section 28 - The importer in the present matter has been identified in the impugned order as noticee and has been fastened with differential duty on the enhanced value. Doubtlessly, it is the same entity that is liable to be penalised. There is no requirement for a specific mention of the importer to validate the penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. The order is not invalidated on that count - imposition of penalty justified. Penalty u/s 112 of CA, 1962 - Held that - While one penalty has been imposed u/s 114A, the penalty of ₹ 10,99,000/- is without reference to any provision, let alone section 112 as presumed by the appellant. Even if such penalty was imposed u/s 112 of Customs Act, 1962, this is a consequence of holding the goods liable for confiscation u/s 111(m) and the adjudicating Commissioner has rendered a finding for doing so - imposition of penalty presumed to be u/s 112, cannot also be faulted. Imposition of penalty both u/s 114A and u/s 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is not improper - revenue dismissed - decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-original involving rejection of declared value, enhancement of assessable value, confirmation of differential duty, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty under unspecified provision, and penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order-in-original dated 3rd June 2005, which rejected the declared value of imported automobile speakers by M/s Newtech Corporation. The order enhanced the assessable value, confirmed a differential duty of ?10,98,729, confiscated the goods, and imposed penalties under unspecified provisions and section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The goods were sourced from various countries and supplied by different entities. The competent committee raised concerns regarding the lack of specificity in the imposition of penalties under section 114A and section 112, and the imposition of penalties in lieu of redemption fines. The appeal sought a remand to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of these issues.

3. During the proceedings, no representative appeared for the respondent. The Authorized Representative reiterated the contents of the appeal on behalf of the Revenue.

4. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order imposed a penalty under section 114A without explicitly identifying the person liable for payment. However, it was clarified that the penalty under section 114A is to be imposed on the person liable to pay duty as determined under section 28. The importer, identified as the 'noticee,' was held responsible for the differential duty, justifying the penalty under section 114A.

5. While a penalty was imposed without reference to any specific provision, the Tribunal explained that the penalty amount was related to the confiscation of goods under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, even if presumed to be under section 112, the penalty imposition was deemed valid based on the adjudicating Commissioner's findings.

6. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties under both section 114A and section 112, stating that such dual penalties were not improper in the given circumstances.

7. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal, affirming the impugned order in its entirety.

(Pronounced in Court)